CompuBox

[Pureist]

The judges don't see the copu-box stats when they're watching the fight. The copu-box is for the viewers watching on TV. The judges still use all of the criteria such as defense, ring general ship, effectively landed punches, the more effective punches landed etc.. The thing here is Pacquiao didn't land that many effective punches and the rounds he did land the more effective punches he won the round. There were just too many rounds where Pacquiao just simply didn't land anything of significance and if he did, he didn't land enough of them when Floyd was landing damn near 2 times as many.

How many times have we seen a fight where one fighter clearly outscores the other and has better copu-box numbers, yet the judges have the other man winning? It happens all the time. The judges don't see the copu-box stats. The Copu-box stats are just simply tallying in punches landed (not taking into consideration the other scoring criteria) and like has been mentioned many times, the way it's done there's plenty of room for error.[/quote]
See this is the exact problem with compubox, you say Floyd landed nearly twice as much as pacquaio, frogshit, your going by compubox, quoting their numbers, many of floyds punches were parried, look like they connected but in reality they didn't, one other poster did the fight in slomo and had Floyd landing 10 more punches for the entire fight, that number would be far more realistic, twice as much is a ridiculous statement and only backed up by a fraudulent compubox[/quote]

I watched the fight In slow motion as well.. You start tallying up those jabs Floyd was landing, Floyd landed twice as many punches. Floyd jab was the best weapon in this fight by both fights and in the later rounds was very effective.

You can call it horseshit or what ever you want to call it. Those are facts, Floyd clearly, clearly outlanded Pacquiao damn near if not 2/1 in that fight. I don't need you to tell me what I saw, I know for a fact what I saw and they weren't no parried punches lmao.[/quote] so if you watched it in slo mo, tell me what stats you came up with please, I might watch it myself on the weekend in slo mo, many of floyds jabs were range control and didn't even intend to land

[koolkc107]

Great point made by those that said what purist said.

Judges don't hear or see compubox stats.

And it's best kept that way.

Manny didn't lose because of compubox; compubox simply showed how bad he lost.

[Boxing Prospect]

Judges don't see them but fans do, and fans regurgitate them as fact. As a result they need to be MUCH more accurate than they are.

[crusader]

Judges don't see them but fans do, and fans regurgitate them as fact. As a result they need to be MUCH more accurate than they are.

x2

CompuBox numbers amount to error-prone human opinions about who threw and landed what; that the people giving these opinions work for CompuBox doesn't mean that they're correct and people who saw things differently aren't. I think they can often give a reasonable depiction of what generally occured, but there are plenty of exceptions to this and that means they must be viewed with skepticism rather than blindly accepted. For me CompuBox is most useful as an illustrative tool, such that if I see punches thrown and landed similar to how they do I can adduce those numbers to quickly others an idea of what I saw. Note that in this case my judgement isn't derived from CompuBox's, but arrived at independently and thus not a product of what the two or three people working for the company think.

On a related point, to further prevent external sources from distorting opinion I think people should try watching more fights w/o sound, as human susceptibility to persuasion (in this case manifested through biased commentary) has been shown repeatedly. Of course in many cases the commentary is so grating due to it's shallowness that it helps to have it muted anyway.

[koolkc107]

Judges don't see them but fans do, and fans regurgitate them as fact. As a result they need to be MUCH more accurate than they are.

x2

CompuBox numbers amount to error-prone human opinions about who threw and landed what; that the people giving these opinions work for CompuBox doesn't mean that they're correct and people who saw things differently aren't.

The problem with folks banging on compubox is that most of the time (tho by no means every time) their findings hold up under further scrutiny.

That is how they have become something of an authority on compiling these statistics.

They are accurate enough that most media sources, boxing writers and even trainers rely on them

[crusader]

What scrutiny is that, and perhaps certain people too readily accept those numbers as accurate?

As I said, CompuBox numbers often seem to do a reasonable job of depicting how a fight generally unfolded but there are plenty of instances when their accuracy has been questionable. Hence, those numbers shouldn't be blindly accepted just because the people who provided those numbers, which are just opinions about punches thrown and landed that are reached without the aid of replays, work for CompuBox.

[Pureist]

Judges don't see them but fans do, and fans regurgitate them as fact. As a result they need to be MUCH more accurate than they are.

x2

CompuBox numbers amount to error-prone human opinions about who threw and landed what; that the people giving these opinions work for CompuBox doesn't mean that they're correct and people who saw things differently aren't. I think they can often give a reasonable depiction of what generally occured, but there are plenty of exceptions to this and that means they must be viewed with skepticism rather than blindly accepted. For me CompuBox is most useful as an illustrative tool, such that if I see punches thrown and landed similar to how they do I can adduce those numbers to quickly others an idea of what I saw. Note that in this case my judgement isn't derived from CompuBox's, but arrived at independently and thus not a product of what the two or three people working for the company think.

On a related point, to further prevent external sources from distorting opinion I think people should try watching more fights w/o sound, as human susceptibility to persuasion (in this case manifested through biased commentary) has been shown repeatedly. Of course in many cases the commentary is so grating due to it's shallowness that it helps to have it muted anyway.

Totally agree with the commentary, they can ruin fights

[Bobbyptsd]

I have a real problem with compubox, and I've expressed it before, in that it has nothing to do with how pro boxing is judged. You watch each round as it's own fight, score that, and at the end add it all up and there you go : Your score.

I mean we can look at numbers after if that makes people happy, but it just has nothing to do with how professional boxing is scored. Tell me you disagree that fighter X won round 7 because you SAW it and you think fighter Y won based on what you watched for, great. Don't tell me "statistics show 36% of power shots according to some guy pushing a button", ugggh.